Posted on 05/07/2008 3:50:49 AM PDT by Dawnsblood
Shellshocked House Republicans got warnings from leaders past and present Tuesday: Your party’s message isn’t good enough to prevent disaster in November, and neither is the NRCC’s money.
The double shot of bad news had one veteran Republican House member worrying aloud that the party’s electoral woes — brought into sharp focus by Woody Jenkins’ loss to Don Cazayoux in Louisiana on Saturday — have the House Republican Conference splitting apart in “everybody for himself” mode.
“There is an attitude that, ‘I better watch out for myself, because nobody else is going to do it,’” the member said. “There are all these different factions out there, everyone is sniping at each other, and we have no real plan. We have a lot of people fighting to be the captain of the lifeboat instead of everybody pulling together.”
In a piece published in Human Events, the Republicans’ onetime captain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, warned his old colleagues that they face “real disaster” on Election Day unless they move immediately to “chart a bold course of real reform” for the country.
And in a closed-door session at the Capitol, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told members that the NRCC doesn’t have enough cash to “save them” in November if they don’t raise enough money or run strong campaigns themselves.
Although a top House Republican brushed aside Gingrich’s broadside as “hype from a has-been who desperately wants to be a player but can’t anymore,” the harsh words from Cole were harder to ignore.
“It was a pretty stern line that he took with us,” said one House Republican.
“They wanted to be liberals, and now they are going to pay for it.”
That’s it in a nutshell. Until mainstream Republicans start acting like real Republicans, not a dime, a dollar or a vote.
Time for Atlas to shrug - and to pick up a gun.
If election day is a disaster for the GOP, what will it be for Conservatives? Oh, here’s an idea - maybe the GOP could come back to the Conservatives and then it might not be a disaster.
People like you and Newt are the problem, NOT the solution. Capitulating to the THE BIG LIE is not a solution. THAT'S PURE GARBAGE! The only real solution is combating THE LIE with the truth, NOT going along with it.
I figure since NC has been a red state in most of the Presidential elections since Reagan, Rush probably moved 300,000 voters to the democrat's ballot. Since 2/3 of those probably never vote in primaries anyway, at least 100,000 of them would have voted on the Republican ballot. Fred Smith lost by 40,000 votes. Since Rush only has influence over conservatives (other than me) most of them would have voted for Fred Smith.
Maybe not 40 years — things move so much more quickly in politics these days — but there is little doubt that the GOP is going to take a drubbing and the libs will have free reign for at least 2 years to “change America.”
And change it they will, without apologies or compromise or bipartisanship in any shape save the Et Tu Brute kind of the Hagel’s, Graham’s and McCain’s of the confederate of idiots known today as the GOP. :(
Somehow, we conservatives need to make the case again for small-R republicanism, as it were, “from the ground up.”
Our so-called leaders just don’t get the concept at all, and the last 8 years of big government and global altruism are why they’re going to get creamed once and for all in November.
Oh really?
What about No Child Left Behind, the TSA and Homeland Security and the proposed subprime bank bailout? Are these not significant expansions of government?
What about the expanded Farm Bills, the addition of the prescription drug benefit to Medicare, the record deficit spending, over and beyond the cost of the War on Terror? The Federal debt was $5 trillion prior to Bush. It now stands close to $10 trillion. Is this not evidence of record spending?
The drug benefit for Medicare expanded an already bloated government welfare program and make more people dependent on government for their survival. How could this possibly be described as anything else?
Which means he accepts the leftist premise that climate change is caused by man, and can be "solved" by man. The entire premise of global "warming" is BS. By accepting it, Newt advocates that government must "do something."
In any case, it IS important that "our country must take action to address climate change," becuase if we don't we'll end up with looney, anticapitalist, coercive and futile Socialist gestures such as Kyoto, to the economic and poloitical detriment of the United States.
There's nothing wrong with reasonable environmental policy, but the left that pushes the global "warming" agenda wants far worse. If anything, Newt should have used this opportunity to provide a reasoned, effective alternate plan that acknowledges the reality of global "warming" and not side with the enemy here.
>>>>>It seems to me that socialists disguised as conservatives have done the damage.
The elephant in our living room is the Evangelicals who have done much to conflate religious values with conservative principles.
There are many here on FR who will say “But, but, they are the same thing.”
And that is exactly the problem, and why John McCrazy is now our unelected and unapproved Democrat nominee for the Republican ticket.
If you’re looking for RINOs to blame you are on the wrong track.
LOL! What? Hey, news flash:
When lower races hang in the balance, vote for the Conservative.
Rush made that very point perfectly clear, time and time again.
Who would be so uninformed as to not know that?
No, it doesn't.
It means we must be engaged in the debate and the "solutions" if we don't want to see more Kyotos down the road.
It has little to do with the "reality" or "unreality" of GW.
It has everything to do with fending off very destructive and coercive "solutions" which are to the detriment of the United States.
Please enlighten me as to how Newt's siding with left, which wants to enact the "destructive and coercive" policies you describe, is supposed to "fend off" such policies.
If anything, Newt's appearing with Nancy Pelosi only validates these "destructive and coercive" policies.
Using the environmental Protection Agency as a sales tool for a climate change agency is probably not a great strategy.
It's not stupidity, it's ignorance.
Though you can argue that it's stupid to remain that ignorant.
You are so right. The Democrats causing these extreme energy prices needs to be campaign issue No. 1.
In 2000 I was an alternate delegate to the Republican National Convention. While there, the Alaskan delegation wore vests stating "OPEN ANWR". If this had happened, we'd be using Alaskan oil right now.
If my memory serves correctly, the Republicans fell 1 vote short of breaking the filibuster. Whose vote was that?
So in other words, Rush was passing off hindsight as foresight?
>>>Capitulating to the THE BIG LIE is not a solution. THAT’S PURE GARBAGE!
I’m more concerned about future Kyotos than about the “Big Lie” itself.
So should you be.
>>>>>Please enlighten me as to how Newt’s siding with left, which wants to enact the “destructive and coercive” policies you describe, is supposed to “fend off” such policies.<<<<
Well you’ve just exposed your encylopedia of ignorance for the whole world to see.
Newt’s entire proposal hinges on capitalist and market based “solutions”, while dissuading the use of coercive government mandates and penalties.
If you’d researched even and hour or two of his thoughts on this matter you’d never, ever have made such an incredibly ignorant statement as the one I quoted above.
What you’ve effectively exposed is that you know nothing - and by that I mean zip, zilch, nada - about what Newt believes or says on this topic.
>>>>>It’s not stupidity, it’s ignorance.
I know, I know.
But it’s based on some visceral hatred for Newt which is an utter mystery to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.